Is there a bigger midwit take than "Why did they just stand in lines and shoot each other? If I was a general I'd have my men taking cover and spreading out!"
Just because the technology made this form of warfare logical and effective doesn't change that it was comparably uninteresting. Napoleonic warfare simply has fewer moving parts and elements compared to periods before and after.
Napoleonic battles saw more intricate maneuver and real combined arms than almost any classical or medieval battle. Like, holy shit, the exact kind of mid-battle communications and adaptive maneuvering that let the Mongols shit on on their enemies on the battlefield level time after time? That was literally the norm for how 18th-early 19th-century armies fought.
There wasn't any cover. They cut down all the trees to grow their shitty grains that they lived off of so they could grow to be 5'4" and die at 45 with no teeth.
If I was general all of my men would be trained assassin's and wouldn't be anywhere near the "battlefield". They'd be at the homes of the other generals murdering their whole families and poisoning the water supply. Conventional warfare is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of and proves that the human species is just a fancy ape. The world has never been ruled by anyone who even had a standing army of any kind, it's always the wealthy elites in the shadows.
Yeah they mostly just surrendered anyways. There were a few long sieges and last stands but almost none of the leadership wanted to fight. They were basically just sneaky pussies lol
Maybe it's midwit but can you explain it?
muh muskets had poor aim doesn't sound too convincing
https://i.imgur.com/GhAqOYh.jpg
If I was general all of my men would be trained assassin's and wouldn't be anywhere near the "battlefield". They'd be at the homes of the other generals murdering their whole families and poisoning the water supply. Conventional warfare is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of and proves that the human species is just a fancy ape. The world has never been ruled by anyone who even had a standing army of any kind, it's always the wealthy elites in the shadows.
> world has never been ruled by standing armies
In an aristocratic age people expelled israelites from their countries, or like king William the Conqueror conquered entire nations. What you are describing is more of a feature of bourgeois society, and became prevalent after the decline of the knightly class in the 1400s
>Muh muskets had poor aim >Black powder produces a shit ton of smoke. That picture attached has 9 people in it and you can barely fricking see some of the people in the back. Imagine hundreds of people in a line. >This also explains the bright uniforms >Hiding and being stealthy isn't very effective when a single shot kicks up that much smoke >Need officers to convey commands and you can't do that if everyone is just running around like it's Battlefield >If you spread out then you get buttraped by cavalry and bayonet charges >Mathematically the best way to take advantage of a gun that shoots 3 times a minute at best is to have everyone line up and send as much lead downrange as possible all at once
There's a ton of other reasons and obviously skirmishers and stuff existed but it's not what your average moron thinks where they were all just stuffy officers who thought it was honorable to line up and slaughter each other.
The most effective way to kill the other guys was to stand in a line and shoot in turns. Guns were super inaccurate so if you spread out your guys to not get hit, in conjuction they'd be unable to hit anything.
Now beginning around the time of the American Revolution, you got riflemen who had enough accuracy to try to take potshots at the other guy, but it still took several decades before you could really rely on stuff like that.
The term used is 'volley fire', but it was less about arcing your shots- more like shooting a wall of lead that you hope kills a bunch of the other guys.
In fact, one way to think about it is using a shotgun that takes twenty men to fire that you have two shots that each take a minute and a half to reload.
18th century muskets with full power 6 dram loads is 12 gauge slug ballistics. You aren't shooting mortars, you can still hit a man somewhat reliably at 100 meters in the center mass if you aim at head height. Or you could be gigachads like the Caroleans, run through the long range values, blast your enemy with a full volley at 20 paces, and then charge with sabers while they're too busy shidding to fight back.
Muskets themselves weren't that inaccurate inherently, sure smoothbore isn't GOOD but the Army specifically used undersized balls so they could load faster
If anything medieval European warfare was far more boring. Maneuver warfare returned to Europe during the the 1600s onwards but medieval warfare in Europe mostly was "hurr we pick a spot and have a shoving match here."
Pike and shot warfare was fricking boring and I will never forgive the spanish for introducing it. >give everyone long spears >form a square >have 10 guys stand outside the square and try to shoot the enemy who are copying you >if cavalry charges have the musket guys hide inside the square and poke the horses
This shit can last for days with barely any action or casualties on any side. At some point armies just gave up trying to battle eachother in the field and the majority of fighting happened in sieges that lasted fricking decades. Cannons becoming more common en masse in land rather than on ships finally ended pike and shot for good since you can just shoot canister at the pike morons. The line battles that came after were kino as frick especially during Napoleon.
Pike and shot warfare was just cannons murdering the other side while armies REEE at each other, often getting into musket battles.
>not knowing about the absolute bat-shit cavalry attacks of the age
Conde, Adolphus and the fricking winged hussars look down on your lack of knowledge
no
it would be the last time classical warfare could still be conducted before it all went to shit
Is there a bigger midwit take than "Why did they just stand in lines and shoot each other? If I was a general I'd have my men taking cover and spreading out!"
Just because the technology made this form of warfare logical and effective doesn't change that it was comparably uninteresting. Napoleonic warfare simply has fewer moving parts and elements compared to periods before and after.
LMAO, people actually believe this?
Napoleonic battles saw more intricate maneuver and real combined arms than almost any classical or medieval battle. Like, holy shit, the exact kind of mid-battle communications and adaptive maneuvering that let the Mongols shit on on their enemies on the battlefield level time after time? That was literally the norm for how 18th-early 19th-century armies fought.
I wonder if it's a two kinds of people sort of thing.
One kind sees themselves as the foot-soldier and sees their individual valor winning the battle.
The other sees themselves as the general and sees their individual valor winning the war.
I mean the video-games about line-warfare tend to be strategy games and the video-games about warfare in the era of the marchine-gun tend to be FPS'.
There wasn't any cover. They cut down all the trees to grow their shitty grains that they lived off of so they could grow to be 5'4" and die at 45 with no teeth.
If I was general all of my men would be trained assassin's and wouldn't be anywhere near the "battlefield". They'd be at the homes of the other generals murdering their whole families and poisoning the water supply. Conventional warfare is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of and proves that the human species is just a fancy ape. The world has never been ruled by anyone who even had a standing army of any kind, it's always the wealthy elites in the shadows.
is this some sort of 14yo's assassins creed fever dream schizo post?
Those assassins sure did larp pretty hard before the mongols destroyed them
Yeah they mostly just surrendered anyways. There were a few long sieges and last stands but almost none of the leadership wanted to fight. They were basically just sneaky pussies lol
It's obviously a joke post dummy
Exactly, but they have Kabbalahic sorcerery.
Skirmishers and light infantries were a thing.
Maybe it's midwit but can you explain it?
muh muskets had poor aim doesn't sound too convincing
> world has never been ruled by standing armies
In an aristocratic age people expelled israelites from their countries, or like king William the Conqueror conquered entire nations. What you are describing is more of a feature of bourgeois society, and became prevalent after the decline of the knightly class in the 1400s
>Muh muskets had poor aim
>Black powder produces a shit ton of smoke. That picture attached has 9 people in it and you can barely fricking see some of the people in the back. Imagine hundreds of people in a line.
>This also explains the bright uniforms
>Hiding and being stealthy isn't very effective when a single shot kicks up that much smoke
>Need officers to convey commands and you can't do that if everyone is just running around like it's Battlefield
>If you spread out then you get buttraped by cavalry and bayonet charges
>Mathematically the best way to take advantage of a gun that shoots 3 times a minute at best is to have everyone line up and send as much lead downrange as possible all at once
There's a ton of other reasons and obviously skirmishers and stuff existed but it's not what your average moron thinks where they were all just stuffy officers who thought it was honorable to line up and slaughter each other.
You will never make standing right in front of a guy with a gun pointed at you look anything other than completely moronic.
The most effective way to kill the other guys was to stand in a line and shoot in turns. Guns were super inaccurate so if you spread out your guys to not get hit, in conjuction they'd be unable to hit anything.
Now beginning around the time of the American Revolution, you got riflemen who had enough accuracy to try to take potshots at the other guy, but it still took several decades before you could really rely on stuff like that.
yeah werent they more like volley shots - just lobbing balls of lead in an arc, vs actually shooting
The term used is 'volley fire', but it was less about arcing your shots- more like shooting a wall of lead that you hope kills a bunch of the other guys.
In fact, one way to think about it is using a shotgun that takes twenty men to fire that you have two shots that each take a minute and a half to reload.
>a minute and a half to reload.
Disgraceful
>minute and a half to reload
If you can't put 5 shots down range in that time you're a frickin scrub
18th century muskets with full power 6 dram loads is 12 gauge slug ballistics. You aren't shooting mortars, you can still hit a man somewhat reliably at 100 meters in the center mass if you aim at head height. Or you could be gigachads like the Caroleans, run through the long range values, blast your enemy with a full volley at 20 paces, and then charge with sabers while they're too busy shidding to fight back.
Muskets themselves weren't that inaccurate inherently, sure smoothbore isn't GOOD but the Army specifically used undersized balls so they could load faster
Well, I’ve heard that the infantry life is 90% boredom and 10% terror. But I don’t think that’s what you meant.
rain, snow, cav, artillery positioning, terrain
there are a lot of things that made it interesting and brutal
Yes. People were very bored while walking straight into grapheshot and volley fire.
Is that why they had drummers to keep them awake?
The fighting itself was the peak of adrenaline. Getting to the fighting was the true misery.
Waterloo is a great film
Nope.
If anything medieval European warfare was far more boring. Maneuver warfare returned to Europe during the the 1600s onwards but medieval warfare in Europe mostly was "hurr we pick a spot and have a shoving match here."
Pike and shot warfare was fricking boring and I will never forgive the spanish for introducing it.
>give everyone long spears
>form a square
>have 10 guys stand outside the square and try to shoot the enemy who are copying you
>if cavalry charges have the musket guys hide inside the square and poke the horses
This shit can last for days with barely any action or casualties on any side. At some point armies just gave up trying to battle eachother in the field and the majority of fighting happened in sieges that lasted fricking decades. Cannons becoming more common en masse in land rather than on ships finally ended pike and shot for good since you can just shoot canister at the pike morons. The line battles that came after were kino as frick especially during Napoleon.
Pike and shot warfare was just cannons murdering the other side while armies REEE at each other, often getting into musket battles.
>not knowing about the absolute bat-shit cavalry attacks of the age
Conde, Adolphus and the fricking winged hussars look down on your lack of knowledge